should sex offenders be sterilized?

as the title says really, ive seen several people on this site arguing sex offenders should be forcibly castrated to 'cure' or at least inhibit their deviance, whats everyone elses opinion on this? is it against their human rights or do they, to quote a someone 'have it coming'?

(Original post by MrJon)
just lock them up. stop defending criminals, stop drawing the line then moving it to suit yourself, stop provoking double standards, stop appeasing terrorists and get a back bone.

(Original post by calumsteele1)
i think i should reiterate the point that 'I' dont want to do anything, this isnt my view. i've just seen it tossed around a bit on TSR and other sites and was curious what the bulk of people thought.

Oh, no i misunderstood the meaning of castration, so you wouldn't actually cut of their penis, just the testes and ovaries. My bad lol, erm then, I guess- it's not that bad. It's cruel, but they may be slightly deserving.
And I know it's not your opinion, you just started the thread.

plus the fact people lie about being raped (recent story of a guy going to prison for 9 years after his daughter claimed he raped her. a better topic would be 'should lying about a crime carry the same punishment as the crime itself, ie if you lie about being raped (happens quite a lot) should you go down, as the only reason for lying is to ruin someones life' if you are wondering, the girl didnt get any charge as the judge thought it might 'stop girls from reporting real cases' ... there aren't enough expletives in the english language to allow me to verbalise my anger.

(Original post by calumsteele1)
my latin isnt what it used to be, care to translate ?

The logical fallacy wherein an argument is invalidated if it uses mass conformity to justify an action.

You mentioned that several countries currently practice this form of justice. Argumentum ad populum suggests that their practice of this is immaterial; the majority of people believed the Earth was flat some years ago, that does not mean that it was a sound judgement, it just meant that a lot of people believed it. The same can be applied to the sterilisation of sex offenders.

(Original post by JollyGreenAtheist)
The logical fallacy wherein an argument is invalidated if it uses mass conformity to justify an action.

You mentioned that several countries currently practice this form of justice. Argumentum ad populum suggests that their practice of this is immaterial; the majority of people believed the Earth was flat some years ago, that does not mean that it was a sound judgement, it just meant that a lot of people believed it. The same can be applied to the sterilisation of sex offenders.

oh no you misunderstand me then i wasnt justifying or arguing a point there, i was simply pointing out that numerous countries have practised this in the past.

(Original post by chickenonsteroids)
it's an argument from popularity. Just because a lot of people believe it to be true doesn't mean it is true. Or the good thing to do, in this case.